First go with the 50mm f/1.8

[rico]

Hey guys.

Couldn't wait. Had a wander round my apartment and found a few items that i thought could be used as a test-bed. Did a few handheld which were fine, but did a few with tripod and it definitely made them a bit crisper.

As this is my first go, I'd love to hear some constructive criticism. What am i doing right? wrong? All very much appreciated.

Here are a few examples:

Few dvds

GT3RS model

My Ibanez (needs cleaning )



Murcielago

[dcw@pr]

rico said:

I'd love to hear some constructive criticism

you might want to look into getting some decent DVDs

[rico]

dcw@pr said:

rico said: I'd love to hear some constructive criticism you might want to look into getting some decent DVDs

Ah! I have an excuse. Those dvds are my flatmates. Mine are in a cd wallet.

What about criticism of the photos? Or were they sooo good that all you can complain about is the dvds?

[V6GTO]

rico said:

I'd love to hear some constructive criticism

you might want to look into getting some decent models.

Martin

[dcw@pr]

they all look fine, personally I never find that I really get used to a lens until you use it for something proper, so you should have fun at virginia water on Sunday. I would say the main thing to be careful with when moving to this sort of lens is to be aware is that the point of focus is a lot more critical than with a more standard setup. Only a few mm can make the difference between a stunner and a bit of junk. I don't know which focus mode you are using, but I would recommend that you use a sigle central point, and after focussing make sure you dont change the distance to subject.

[rico]

Martin - well i was going to pop down to the garage to photograph my Enzo but i couldn't be bothered...

David - thanks. I didn't even check which mode. I'm chuffed to bits with the D70. Lots of new modes and settings to play with in the future

Virginia Water should be fun!

[LeoZwalf]

Jeepers, that is a short focal length!

I don't know alot about still cameras though, never seen anything like that before. What's the benefits?

[bilko2]

I think Leo is right, the subjects are too small for such a small focal lenght.
All of a sudden the subject disapears into blur instead of a gradual more pleasing effect.
I can't find an example but i think the background needs to be further away to get the benefit.
Ian

[Zad]

To get a deeper depth of field, you will unfortunately need to stop down to a smaller aperture. Of course that means a longer exposure too ...

Mike

[simpo two]

Gentlemen, I suspect you're talking about shallow depth of field, not focal length...?

[beano500]

...and while we're talking d.o.f.

Can someone (Simpo?) just help me (and anyone else going from film to pixel)?

I have read some long interweb articles about the effect on d.o.f. but I don't think I am any the wiser.

What happens with d.o.f. when you go from a 36x24 image to the smaller sensor area?

If I understand correctly*, d.o.f. decreases.

This seems intuitively correct, but I haven't seen it explained in plain english.... nor have I seen a more quantative explanation that I have retained!

*There's a first time for everything - it just may not be today!

[dcw@pr]

beano500 said:

...and while we're talking d.o.f. Can someone (Simpo?) just help me (and anyone else going from film to pixel)? I have read some long interweb articles about the effect on d.o.f. but I don't think I am any the wiser. What happens with d.o.f. when you go from a 36x24 image to the smaller sensor area? If I understand correctly*, d.o.f. decreases. This seems intuitively correct, but I haven't seen it explained in plain english.... nor have I seen a more quantative explanation that I have retained! *There's a first time for everything - it just may not be today!

Let's assume that you are talking about moving to a DSLR from a film one. Let's also assume that you are using a D100, so that has a sensor 66% the size of 35mm film (a 1.5x magnification factor).

The formula for DOF has three variables,

1)Focal length (longer focal length = smaller DOF)
2)Distance to subject (closer to subject = smaller DOF)
3)Aperture (larger aperture = smaller DOF)

Now when changing from your F100 to your D100, none of these variables will change, so the DOF will be the same. Except...

Because of the smaller sensor (although same focal length), if you want to take the same photograph with the D100 as you did with the F100 then you will have to be further away from your subject to fit it all in.

So in practice, the DOF is actually greater with the digital camera than with its film equivalent.

*I must point out that what I have written above is only what I have thought of personally. I have seen mention of film size affecting DOF in a different way, although I have never actaully seen any sort of explanation as to why it might, and I can't think of one. If someone can tell us why that might be, I am more than willing to learn!*

[simpo two]

I think the purists would argue that DOF is constant regardless of focal length, but you certainly get the *illusion* of less DOF at longer lengths. And it's what you see/feel that counts, not formulae on paper!

[dcw@pr]

simpo two said:

I think the purists would argue that DOF is constant regardless of focal length, but you certainly get the *illusion* of less DOF at longer lengths. And it's what you see/feel that counts, not formulae on paper!

interesting

I guess the question is, what would happen if you took the same picture with a medium format camera with a 90mm lens, and a D100 with a 20mm (I'm approximating these numbers!). Would the DOF be the same?

[beano500]

Now that's the sort of question (medium format 90mm v digital sensor 20mm) that I suppose I had at the back of my mind.

Isn't depth of field also a function of how much you enlarge the final image, since it is related to the perceived sharpness?

If that's true, the 90mm/medium will have more dof than the 20mm/digi?

[dcw@pr]

beano500 said:

Isn't depth of field also a function of how much you enlarge the final image, since it is related to the perceived sharpness?

In a word, no

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

Basically changing the sensor size doesn't change the DOF. Think of the smaller sensor as an image crop. If you cropped an image, would you expect the DOF to change? No.

As simpo says, DOF is a misleading term. The focus point is infinitely small, so the DOF is the tolerable blur amount each side of it. Stuff Depth of Focus and circle of confusion into google....